Gokul Mrugesh Jaykrushna vs Special Secretary, Revenue Department ...

Gujarat High Court

Gokul Mrugesh Jaykrushna vs Special Secretary, Revenue Department ... on 27 November, 2025

                                                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/13549/2018                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025

                                                                                                                        undefined




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                          13549 of 2018

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI                                    :        Sd/-
                      =======================================================

                                Approved for Reporting    Yes      No
                                                           -       √
                      =======================================================
                                      GOKUL MRUGESH JAYKRUSHNA
                                                Versus
                       SPECIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (APPEALS) & ORS.
                      =======================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR RAJ A TRIVEDI(7024) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      VIRAL K SHAH(5210) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP or the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4
                      =======================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                       Date : 27/11/2025
                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi waives service of notice of rule for respondents.

2. By filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under

the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Revenue Code" for short"), the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.HKP/VDD/21/2017, the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 in RTS/RA No.532/2015, the order dated 26.07.2012 passed by Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined the respondent no.3 in RTS Appeal No.406/2011 and the order dated 18.06.2011 passed by the respondent no.4, whereby Entry No.3054 had not been certified.

3. The facts of the case in brief are as under, The land bearing Survey Nos.392 & 393, Block No.437 admeasuring 0-52-32 Sq.Mtrs. situated in Village : Dudhwada, Taluka : Padara, District :

Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question" for short) was originally belonging to one Pagi Chhaganbhai Bhaijibhai and after his death, his heirs were brought on record, out of total land, land admeasuring 0-34-98 Sq.Mtrs. has been purchased by the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 03.08.2010 on payment of sale consideration and Entry No.3054 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 15.04.2011, however, the respondent - Circle Officer, Padra rejected the said entry by an order dated 18.06.2011 on the ground of that there is violation of Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Fragmentation Act" for short) and the fact that the petitioner is not an agriculturist and the said order was upheld by the revenue authorities upto respondent - Special Secretary, therefore, the present petition is filed.

4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Viral Shah Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondents.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah referred to the documents produced on record and submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question on payment of entire sale consideration, that too, by executing registered sale deed dated 03.08.2010 and based on it, Entry No.3054 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 15.04.2011, however on the ground of violation of Fragmentation Act and the fact that the petitioner is not an agriculturist and the said view adopted by the respondent no.4 has been upheld by the respondent nos.1 to 3. He referred to the orders passed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the operative part of the said orders, in that event, it is found out that despite the fact that the petitioner has produced documents related to his status of agriculturist, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have jumped to a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to produce documents with regard to his status of agriculturist. He submitted that in fact, the petitioner is having land within the territory of Gandhinagar district and certain revenue records were produced before the revenue authorities, which crystallize the position that the petitioner is an agriculturist, however at the time of rejecting the request of the petitioner, the revenue authorities have opined that just because of the fact that the documents produced by the Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined petitioner are of other district, it cannot be verified. He, therefore, submitted that in fact, it is incumbent upon the revenue authorities to verify the fact of status of an agriculturist of the petitioner when the documents have been produced but it has not been done so and thus, interference of this Hon'ble Court is required.

6. At this stage, learned advocate, Mr. Shah has referred to the addition affidavit filed by the petitioner in the present proceedings and submitted that by filing additional affidavit, the petitioner has produced on record a certificate issued by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar with regard to showing his status as an agriculturist. He further submitted that in fact, documents showing him as agriculturist were also produced before the revenue authorities but none of them were considered. He, however, submitted that the petitioner is an agriculturist, therefore, the revenue authorities ought to have mutated entry based on the registered sale deed produced by him.

7. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah further submitted that so far as the alleged violation of the provision of the Fragmentation Act is concerned, till date, the petitioner has not been received any notice for violation of such provision though sufficient time has been passed after rejection of said entry. He further submitted that so far as the rights of other persons are concerned, the said transaction had been executed between the parties in the year Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined 2010 and till date, no civil litigation had been instituted by either parties before the any competent civil court.

8. At this stage, learned advocate, Mr. Shah has relied upon Section 135C of the Revenue Code and submitted that as and when the registered document is produced before the revenue authority, the revenue authorities are under an obligation to mutate entry without any delay and law on this issue has been cleared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in numerous case laws. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Balvantrai Ambaram Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 232555. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and the revenue authorities may be directed to mutate entry in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed.

9. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Trivedi appearing for the respondents vehemently objected present petition and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are just, fair and based on sound principle of law, therefore, same do not require any interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court. He submitted that at the time of certifying the entry, the respondent no.4 found that the sale Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined transaction is in contravention of the provision of the Fragmentation Act and the petitioner is not an agriculturist, the said entry has not been certified. He further submitted that in fact, the revenue records produced by the petitioner are of different village, therefore, same could not be verified. At this stage, producing on record a communication dated 21.11.2025 received from the Additional Collector, Vadodara (Rural), it is submitted that till date, no notice and/or proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under the Fragmentation Act. He, therefore, submitted that the matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration keeping all rights open to agitate before the authority concerned.

10. In view of the rival submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it is evident that the entry mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the registered sale deed was called in question by the respondent no.4 and, thereafter, it has not been certified on the ground that the sale transaction is in contravention of the provision of the Fragmentation Act and the petitioner is not an agriculturist and said order was carried upto respondent no.1 and it has been confirmed, therefore, the petitioner has assailed all those impugned orders.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined

11. On perusal of the impugned orders, as stated above, the entry has been cancelled only on the ground of violation of Fragmentation Act and the petitioner is not having status of an agriculturist. In this regard, it is required to be noted that the registered sale deed is dated 03.08.2010, based on which, Entry No.3054 was mutated in the revenue record on 15.04.2011 and it has been cancelled on 18.06.2011 and thus, more than 14 years have been elapsed, therefore till date, no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for alleged violation of the Fragmentation Act. It is required to be noted that it is settled proposition of law that it is the competent civil court, who is competent to decide the title over the land and not by the revenue authority in exercise of power under the provision of the Revenue Code. The said aspect is already considered by this Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991(1) GLR 113, and also in the case of Siddharth B. Shah & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 (3) GLR 2527. This Court in the aforesaid two judgments has considered the scope and ambit of Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities while considering the RTS proceedings and has held as under;

"So far as the proceedings under Sec. 108 of Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined the Rules popularly known as RTS proceedings are concerned it is well settled that the entries made in the revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. Such mutations have to follow either the documents of title or the orders passed by the competent authorities under special enactments. Independently the revenue authorities, as mentioned in 108 of the Rules, cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transactions recorded in the entry are against the provisions of a particular enactment. Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be examined by the competent authority under the particular enactment by following the procedure prescribed therein and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties likely to be affected by any order that may be passed."

12. Further so far as the petitioner having status of an agriculturist is concerned, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had produced revenue record of Gandhinagar district contending that he is having land over there and even before this Hon'ble Court also, by way of filing additional affidavit, certificate of his having status of an agriculturist has been produced on record. However it is evident from the record that despite production of such documents, the revenue authorities have not verified the status of the Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined petitioner and rejected his request. Be that as it may, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not an agriculturist.

13. At this stage, it is also required to be taken note of second proviso to section 135-C, which reads thus:

                                      "135-C xxx              xxx     xxx
                                      xxx       xxx      xxx

Provided further that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the designated officer.

                                      Explanation I            xxx xxx xxx
                                      Explanation II                    xxx xxx xxx "
                      14.     It    is       settled      proposition           of   law     that,       when       a

person has a registered document executed in his favour acquiring certain right, he has been exempted from reporting the acquisition of right to the revenue authority. To this, apt is the judgment of this Court in the case of Balvantrai Ambaram Patel (supra). Wherein in paragraphs 5.3 to 6.1, certain observations have been made, which read thus:-

"5.3 As per Section 135-C of the Code extracted above, any person who acquires right on any land or is able to assert right of occupancy, ownership, mortgage, etc., it is provided that he shall make report to the designated officer. Second Proviso to the provision is material for the purpose of the case on hand, which says that any person Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document is exempted from the obligation to make report to the designated officer. The said Proviso in other way recognizes the legal effect of a registered document by virtue of which a person may have purchased the land. He will be then able to assert his right as owner by virtue of the registered sale deed itself from which, for him all incidences of ownership would flow. Therefore once there is a registered document of sale of land, the purchaser would be entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue records on that basis. 5.4 Section 135-D contemplates verification of the report made to him under Section 135-C. Various provisions of Section 135- D envisage the procedure for verification and making of necessary entries in the register of mutations as well as certification thereof. Sub-section (2) provides for intimation to all persons appearing on the record of rights and who are interested in the mutation. The designated officer is required to intimate them and receive objections, if any, from such person. Sub- section (4) provides for orders disposing of the Appeals. Sub-section (5) provides that where no objection is raised within a prescribed period of 30 days, the mutation entry shall be certified.

5.5 A conjoint effect of aforesaid provisions is Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined that in cases of a claim made for mutation by a person in capacity of owner on the basis of registered sale deed, the designated officer is bound to enter his name as having purchased the land by lawful mode of transfer. As already noticed, a person purchasing the land by registered sale deed is not supposed to make a report to the designated officer for the purpose of entries in the revenue records, as is contemplated in relation to other cases. The working of the provisions of Sections 135-C and 135-D obtained a position that a mutation entry has to be made by the designated officer on the basis of the registered document, in the instant case, a document of sale. After making mutation entry in favour of such person recognizing his claim on the basis of registered document, the designated officer thereafter may follow the procedure under Section 135- D, implying that the competent officer may subsequently deal with the objections received and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of sub- sections of Section 135-D.

6. Therefore in all cases of claims for mutation based on a registered document, the competent officer has to be entered the name of the claimantowner-right holder. The authority cannot insist for observing the requirements of Section 135-D apriori and on Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined that basis declined to enter the name in the revenue records. The designated officer in charge of the said function has no jurisdiction to disregard the legal effect of the registered document, and he cannot be permitted to do so even indirectly. Once the petitioner purchased the land in question by virtue of registered sale deed, he is entitled to have his name mutated in the revenue records. The reasons given in the impugned order dated 04.02.2014 of the Mamlatdar for not mutating the entry and insisting for consent letters, etc., have no sanction of law and they do not hold good in light of the statutory provisions noted above.

6.1 Accordingly this petition is allowed. The order dated 04.02.2014 of respondent No.3- Mamlatdar (copy produced at Annexure-A with the petition) is hereby set aside. It is directed that respondent No.3 shall follow the mandate of Section 135-C with regard to request of the petitioner. It is simultaneously observed that the said authority shall be at liberty to undergo and comply with the provisions of Section 135-D in the event necessary."

15. Similarly, in decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Narendrabhai Shantilal Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247646, it has been observed as under;

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined "10. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the law with regard to mutation of entry of a registered sale deed as well as while mutation of the entry, the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities has already been settled by this Hon'ble Court in catena of decisions. It would be apt to take note of the decision of this Court in case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Others, reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1370. The relevant observations of the said decisions read, thus;

"9. It is the consistent view taken by this Court in catena of judgments that the revenue authorities while dealing with RTS proceedings had no jurisdiction and/or authority to decide the question of title and if there is any dispute with regard to title the parties are to be relegated to the Civil Court. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat VS. Patel Raghav Natha - AIR 1969 SC Page 1297 and judgment of this Court in the case of Ratilal Chunilal Solanki & Ors. Vs. Shantilal Chunilal Solanki - 1996(2) GLR 525 and Siddharth B. Shah vs. State of Gujarat, the revenue authorities cannot decide the disputed question of title to the property and they have to merely go by the documents produced before them.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Even this Court has held in the case of Nathabhai Meraman Darji (Supra) that when a document of registered sale deed is produced before the authority, the revenue authorities are bound to give effect to the same and are not required to decide the question of title.

10. Even this Court in a recent judgment in the case of L.R.s of Popat Khima Ramani and Ors. vs. Collector, Rajkot and Ors., reported in 2003(1) GLH 30, has considered the scope of revenue authorities while deciding the question with regard to mutation entry and the powers under Section 135 and Rule 108, has held that revenue authorities are not to decide the question about title and the revenue authorities are to make necessary entries on the basis of decision of Civil Court. It is further held in the said judgment that the revenue authorities are invested with limited powers under Section 135 and they cannot assume to themselves certain powers conferred on them by law and they cannot assume jurisdiction of Civil Court. The revenue authorities cannot decide validity of transaction on touchstone of statutory provision occurring in some enactment and that they cannot decide disputed question of title. In fact, this Court has gone to Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined the extent that when a dispute as to the title arises the parties have to go to the competent Civil Court. In the present case, in fact the Civil Suit is pending between the parties and the Civil Court is to decide all these questions which are raised by the petitioner in the present Special Civil Application with regard to validity of the power of attorney, the genuineness of sale deed, and the authority of power of attorney holder on the basis of the power of attorney. Considering the fact that the suit is pending between the parties and that the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the sale deed before the Civil Court and that there is an injunction in the said Suit, in fact the Secretary (Appeals) has tried to strike the balance and has tried to protect the interests of all the parties by directing that the factum of injunction granted by the Civil Court should also be noted in the entry and that the entry in favour of respondent No.5 would be subject to the ultimate outcome of the suit pending between the parties in which the legality and validity of the sale deed is challenged. It cannot be said that there is any illegality committed by the Secretary (Appeals). On the contrary, the judgment Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined and order passed by the revisional authority, i.e. Secretary (Appeals) is in consonance with the provisions of Section 135 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court with regard to the powers of revenue authorities while dealing with the question of mutation entries. The revenue authorities are not required to consider with regard to the genuineness of the sale deed, the powers and authority of the power of attorney holder under the power of attorney and the question with regard to the title. What is required to be done by the Sub- Registrar at the time when the sale deed was executed cannot be permitted to be done by the Mamlatdar and/or revenue authorities while deciding the question with regard to mutation entry, more particularly the entry in the record of rights is only having a presumptive value and only for a fiscal purpose of recovering and payment of revenue and it does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of any party in the property.

11. So far as submissions and arguments on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the aforesaid transaction that there would be a Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined breach of provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act as the land would be fragmented and therefore also the respondent could not have purchased the land in question and the said transaction was in breach of provisions of the Act and therefore also the entry in favour of the respondent could not have been made on the basis of the said sale. This aspect is already considered by this Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991(1) GLR 113, and also in the case of Siddharth B. Shah & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999(3) GLR Page 2527. This Court in the aforesaid two judgments has considered the scope and ambit of Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities while considering the RTS proceedings and has held as under;

"So far as the proceedings under Section 108 of the Rules popularly known as RTS proceedings are concerned it is well settled that the entries made in the revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. Such mutations have to follow either the documents of title or the orders passed by the competent authorities under special enactments. Independently the revenue authorities, as mentioned in 108 Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined of the Rules, cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transactions recorded in the entry are against the provisions of a particular enactment. Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be examined by the competent authority under the particular enactment by following the procedure prescribed therein and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties likely to be affected by any order that may be passed." Considering the judgment of this Court in aforesaid two cases, there is no substance in the argument and submission on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that while considering the RTS proceedings and making necessary entry in favour of the respondents, the revenue authority was also required to consider that by aforesaid transaction there will be breach of provisions of Fragmentation Act or not and the same is required to be rejected." transactions recorded in the entry are against the provisions of a particular enactment. Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be examined by the competent authority under the particular enactment by following the procedure prescribed therein and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties likely Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined to be affected by any order that may be passed."

Considering the judgment of this Court in aforesaid two cases, there is no substance in the argument and submission on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that while considering the RTS proceedings and making necessary entry in favour of the respondents, the revenue authority was also required to consider that by aforesaid transaction there will be breach of provisions of Fragmentation Act or not and the same is required to be rejected."

11. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid proposition of law as well as the facts of the present case, in my considered opinion, the revenue authorities while exercising the powers under the revenue jurisdiction appear to have exceeded its jurisdiction by refusing to mutate the registered sale deed entry on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the details of land within the Godhara Taluka. The entire crux for cancellation of the mutation of entry is that the petitioner had not produced the agricultural land certificate. In my considered opinion, under the provision of Section 135-C of the Code, it is the duty of the revenue authorities to give effect of registered sale deed in the revenue records at the first instance. Whether the petitioner is an agriculturist or not, can be the Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined subject matter in a different and independent proceedings but, certainly, cannot be considered in the revenue proceedings. In the instant case, however, if the order of the Deputy Collector, Godhara dated 16.1.2016 is perused, it is abundantly made clear therein that the petitioner has already produced the agricultural certificate of the Mamlatdar, Halol dated 26.2.2012. Under the circumstances, rejection of mutation entry on that ground, even otherwise, could not have been sustained.

12. Considering the further fact that now, the suit filed by respondent No.6 seeking cancellation of the sale deed has already been culminated into dismissal and that no further appeal has been filed, the order of the competent civil court is said to have attained its finality and thereby also, on that additional ground, the mutation of entry pursuant to the registered sale deed has to be restored. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the revenue authorities is not tenable under the law and thereby, requires to be quashed and set aside."

16. Thus in view of the settled proposition of law, if the facts of the present case are examined, in that event, it is evident that there is no breach as alleged and the petitioner is an agriculturist, therefore, the sale transaction of the petitioner Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13549/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined by way of registered sale deed dated 03.08.2010 can be said to be genuine one, therefore on the basis of the registered sale deed, the revenue authority ought to have mutated entry in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

17. In the result, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.HKP/VDD/21/2017, the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 in RTS/RA No.532/2015, the order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 in RTS Appeal No.406/2011 and the order dated 18.06.2011 passed by the respondent no.4 are hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the revenue authority concerned shall restore Entry No.3054 mutated in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed in his favour and then, certify it. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

Sd/-

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:02:26 IST 2025